Do closed survey questions over-estimate public perceptions of food risks?

In this paper we show that the widely accepted methodology for the assessment of risk perception – Likert type survey questions featuring a set of risks with fixed response alternatives measuring the extent of worry or concern – may over-estimate food risk perception. Using a European representative sample survey (n=26,961) that included an open-ended question asking about problems and risks with food and eating, followed by a battery of closed questions assessing food risk perception we find a similar ranking of perceived food risks across the two methods. Across Europe the five priority concerns are chronic food related illness; food origins and quality; acute food related illness; chemical contamination, and adulteration of food. However, the discrepancies between mentioning a risk in the open ended question and the expression of worry about risks in the closed question are substantial. Of those who did not mention a specific risk category in the open question, between 60% and 83% (depending on risk category) expressed worry in the closed question. This parallels previous research on the fear of crime, showing that survey responses lead to greatly inflated estimates of the public’s fear of crime than is evidenced by qualitative questioning. It is also consistent with evidence from research on cognitive aspects of survey methodology suggesting that survey questions may frame the respondent’s thinking about an issue. We conclude with recommendations for the use of branched questions in the quantitative elicitation of public perceptions of risk

Cooperative Decision Making : a methodology based on collective preferences aggregation

National audienceThe benefice of a collective decisions process mainly rests upon the possibility for the participants to confront their respective points of views. To this end, they must have cognitive and technical tools that ease the sharing of the reasons that motivate their own preferences, while accounting for information and feelings they should keep for their own. The paper presents the basis of such a cooperative decision making methodology that allows sharing information by accurately distinguishing the components of a decision and the steps of its elaboration

Reasons and Means to Model Preferences as Incomplete

Literature involving preferences of artificial agents or human beings often assume their preferences can be represented using a complete transitive binary relation. Much has been written however on different models of preferences. We review some of the reasons that have been put forward to justify more complex modeling, and review some of the techniques that have been proposed to obtain models of such preferences

Perception of Nuclear Energy and Coal in France and the Netherlands

This study focuses on the perception of large scale application of nuclear energy and coal in the Netherlands and France. The application of these energy-sources and the risks and benefits are judged differently by various group in society. In Europe, France has the highest density of nuclear power plants and the Netherlands has one of the lowest. In both countries scientists and social scientists completed a questionnaire assessing the perception of the large scale application of both energy sources. Furthermore, a number of variables relating to the socio cultural and political circumstances were measured. The results indicate that the French had a higher risk perception and a more negative attitude toward nuclear power than the Dutch. But they also assess the benefits of the use of nuclear power to be higher. Explanations for these differences are discussed

How decision context changes the balance between cost and benefit increasing charitable donations

Recent research on charitable donations shows that donors evaluate both the impact of helping and its cost. We asked whether these evaluations were affected by the context of alternative charitable causes. We found that presenting two donation appeals in joint evaluation, as compared to separate evaluation, increased the perceived benefit of the cause ranked as more important (Study 1), and decreased its perceived cost, regardless of the relative actual costs (Study 2). Finally, we try to reconcile an explanation based on perceived cost and benefit with previous work on charitable donations

A Prediction Model for Consumer Behavior regarding Product Safety

The objective of this study was the development of a model to predict whether a consumer would use a product safely as a function of sixteen different individual variables. Subjects were presented with four consumer products to use in an experimental setting where the true purpose of the study was concealed. Discriminant analysis was used to develop a prediction model to classify subjects into categories of safe or unsafe behavior. Prediction accuracy ranged from 68–86 percent for different types of behavior. The research illustrated which variables are important in determining whether a product will be used safely and has implications for product design, warnings, instructions for use and training.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Prospect relativity: how choice options influence decision under risk.

In many theories of decision under risk (e.g., expected utility theory, rank-dependent utility theory, and prospect theory), the utility of a prospect is independent of other options in the choice set. The experiments presented here show a large effect of the available options, suggesting instead that prospects are valued relative to one another. The judged certainty equivalent for a prospect is strongly influenced by the options available. Similarly, the selection of a preferred prospect is strongly influenced by the prospects available. Alternative theories of decision under risk (e.g., the stochastic difference model, multialternative decision field theory, and range frequency theory), where prospects are valued relative to one another, can provide an account of these context effects

The martyrdom effect : when pain and effort increase prosocial contributions

Most theories of motivation and behavior (and lay intuitions alike) consider pain and effort to be deterrents. In contrast to this widely held view, we provide evidence that the prospect of enduring pain and exerting effort for a prosocial cause can promote contributions to the cause. Specifically, we show that willingness to contribute to a charitable or collective cause increases when the contribution process is expected to be painful and effortful rather than easy and enjoyable. Across five experiments, we document this “martyrdom effect,” show that the observed patterns defy standard economic and psychological accounts, and identify a mediator and moderator of the effect. Experiment 1 showed that people are willing to donate more to charity when they anticipate having to suffer to raise money. Experiment 2 extended these findings to a non-charity laboratory context that involved real money and actual pain. Experiment 3 demonstrated that the martyrdom effect is not the result of an attribute substitution strategy (whereby people use the amount of pain and effort involved in fundraising to determine donation worthiness). Experiment 4 showed that perceptions of meaningfulness partially mediate the martyrdom effect. Finally, Experiment 5 demonstrated that the nature of the prosocial cause moderates the martyrdom effect: the effect is strongest for causes associated with human suffering. We propose that anticipated pain and effort lead people to ascribe greater meaning to their contributions and to the experience of contributing, thereby motivating higher prosocial contributions. We conclude by considering some implications of this puzzling phenomenon. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Utility, subjective probability, their interaction, and variance preferences

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66507/2/10.1177_002200276200600106.pd